In defense of qnext and qtop

[Christian Boos]

Brendan Cully wrote:
> On Friday, 04 September 2009 at 21:29, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:08, Brendan Cully<brendan at kublai.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> +1. I thought if these commands were removed they'd at least get some
>>> kind of flag to qseries that preserved the functionality. And
>>> personally I prefer to keep the original commands.
>>>       
>> You mean, like qapp -1 and qunapp -1?
>>     
>
> yes.

Beware that "qapp -1" gives you "qprev", not "qtop".

For qtop, you need something like the attached qtop.patch. The test 
should pass, but I'm on Windows and get a "cannot run tests with 
timeouts" message when checking test-mq, so I couldn't verify.

As discussed a few weeks earlier, the corresponding long option "--last" 
should be better renamed "--prev".
So I also added a patch for the renaming of the long flags.

-- Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: qtop.patch
Url: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20090905/87f8fc8b/attachment.txt 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: qprev_qnext.patch
Url: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20090905/87f8fc8b/attachment-0001.txt